Story needlessly stoked pot fears

Additional context and clarifications are sorely needed in regards to the Times-Herald cover story, ("Potent plants: Officials: Little known locally about 'earwax' variety, its dangers." (Front and Center, July 28)

Most troublingly, reporter Marie Estrada implies throughout the story that so-called "earwax" is a distinct strain of the marijuana plant. This is not the case. Rather, "earwax" (or "wax") is slang for concentrated extracts derived from the cannabis plant. These gooey concoctions do not resemble cannabis in either appearance or texture, are typically ingested in a different manner than one would consume marijuana, and are typically labeled by dispensary providers as possessing far higher concentrations of THC - the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana - than standard plant material.

Access to such products is typically limited to those who have legal right of entry to dispensary facilities and also possess the disposable income to afford their relatively high-end retail price (often between $30 and $40 per gram).

Are these concentrated products more potent than the cannabis flowers they are derived from? Yes. As such, consumers - particularly those who are relatively naïve to the plant's effects - ought to proceed with caution if and when they decide to ingest such products. Are these products for everyone? Arguably, they are not. Most adults who socially consume alcohol drink beer or wine, not Bacardi 151 or Everclear. Most adults who take pain relievers consume Advil or Tylenol, not Oxycodone. And similarly, most adults who consume cannabis - whether they do so for therapeutic or recreational purposes - do not consume wax concentrates, which comprise only a fraction of the present marijuana market.

Of course, it remains to be seen how much local demand for these niche products may increase following the Times-Herald sensationalist coverage. At no time did Estrada make it clear that cannabis, regardless of THC content, is incapable of causing lethal overdose. (The same can't be said for alcohol, caffeine, sodium, or even aspirin - all of which have lethal dose potential in humans.) Nor did the story emphasize that nobody among the marijuana law reform community is advocating or encouraging that the substance be available to or be consumed by adolescents.

Those like myself, who advocate in favor of a legally regulated, above ground cannabis market, readily acknowledge that consuming cannabis may temporarily alter mood and judgment and may potentially pose other risks. But these concerns do not validate the substance's continued criminalization.

Just the opposite is true. There are numerous adverse health consequences associated with alcohol, tobacco and prescription pharmaceuticals - all of which modern scientific inquiry has determined to be far more dangerous and costlier to society than cannabis - and it's precisely because of these consequences that these products are legally regulated and their use is restricted to particular consumers and specific settings.

Similarly, a pragmatic regulatory framework that allows for limited, licensed production and sale of cannabis to adults but restricts use among young people - coupled with a legal environment that fosters open dialogue between parents and children about cannabis' potential harms - best reduces the risks associated with the plant's use or abuse. It is this precise policy that in recent years has discouraged teen use of cigarettes to historic lows. Similar regulatory principles ought to govern the way society addresses marijuana.

Paul Armentano

Deputy director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws